YAY! To Judge Ruling Against ID Being Taught In Science Class

[flakko 5,000+ posts]

i think the main reason people turn down the idea of ID, is that they dont do any in depth research on the topic.

i for one have not done any hardcore research on any of the theories so i cant say squat (although darwin himself said his theory can easily be disproven)

 

[bikejunkie223 10+ year member]

the idea of an intelligent being can be scientifically tested. sure it can, i just don't know how, but it's been going on for a long long time.

This is a joke right? There is no way to test that short of the Intelligent being showing up.

 

[adio 5,000+ posts]

This is a joke right? There is no way to test that short of the Intelligent being showing up.

no why would it be a joke? trying to prove whether an Intelligent being exists or not, has been going on for centuries. don't you agree or are u saying/asking something i'm not seeing?

 

[jrouter76 10+ year member]

Yes.


Wrong. Evolution can provide us a hypthosesis that is testable and repeatable, and can be used to predict the future outcome of events.

ID & Creationism can not, and hence ARE NOT science, but a belief.

Science doesn't attempt to "prove" anything. It attempts to accurately model the universe around us. It provides us theories that are testable and repeatable via the scientific method and can be used to predict the outcome of future events. Evolution can be tested under the scientific method and can be used to predict the outcome of future experiments, and hence IS science.

people only say that becuase they are afraid of the truth and the truth is that were are created beings wether you agree or not...here`s something to think about"just becuase you go to McDonalds` does it make you a hamburger!

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

scientific experiments can't guarantee the outcome of future events. they can tell what should normally happen though.

And if the hypthesis was incorrect (the outcome did not occur), then we start over with a new hypthesis and test again until we arrive at a valid hypthesis, which then becomes a scientific theory. What does all of this do? Attempt to predict the outcome of future events. That is what science and the scientific method does.

Until someone can disprove a scientific theory, then that is the guaranteed outcome. And if the guaranteed outcome does not happen, then a new hypthesis is formed.

Science and the scientific method is dynamic like that....that is one of it's main strengths.

ID is not beyond the realm of physics and the universe.

Yes, yes it is.

one needs physics, astronomy, geology, cellular biology, chemistry, dna research, etc, to make a case for ID. without those things, ID loses.

And even with all of those things, you will NEVER be able to form a scientific theory due to the qualification of an intelligent being being a part of ID. ID is not, can not and never will be a scientific theory or scientifically valid.

 

[Hundreth 10+ year member]

You can not scientifically test ID. It relies on an intelligent being, which can neither be proven nor disproven by creating a hypthesis and testing that hypthesis. And it can not be used to predict the outcome of future experiments. It is beyond the realm of physics and the universe. Hence, not science......EVER.

I'm with you on everything else, but I'm not so sure I agree with you there.

ID can sort of be scientifically tested, its just that our usual conception of ID depends on religious texts. Lets assume we had a religious text which stated that our "intelligent creator" says that if we throw a rock at a penguin... it will turn into magic fairy dust. Its pretty easy to scientifically test that.

You can scientifically test ID when you have something to base it on, but ID in the abstract cannot be scientifically tested, I agree.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Lets assume we had a religious text which stated that our "intelligent creator" says that if we throw a rock at a penguin... it will turn into magic fairy dust. Its pretty easy to scientifically test that.

No it's not, because we can not scientifically test the existance of said "intelligent creator". That right there makes it scientifically null and void.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Good read on the topic: http://forum.elitecaraudio.com/showthread.php?threadid=124052

Pay much attention to werewolf's posts.

 

[zane 10+ year member]

Seems to me that people who believe in creationism are being fooled by their own ignorance or have never taken a college level biology course

I could retort:

It seems to me that people who do not believe in creationism are consumed by an inherant conceit. They are completely full of themselselves, narrow minded, and shallow. Or; that they have never stepped outside their class room to look around themselves in the real world.

It works both ways.

 

[Hundreth 10+ year member]

No it's not, because we can not scientifically test the existance of said "intelligent creator". That right there makes it scientifically null and void.

I guess you are right... after thinking about it, it kind of fell into place for me. You can test the validity of a religious text if it makes bold claims which can be tested, but you cannot test the very existance of the "intelligent creator."

 

[ighettoboyi 10+ year member]

squeak just hates God and church ever since priests molested him when he was a wee little catholic school boy //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[flakko 5,000+ posts]

squeak just hates God and church ever since priests molested him when he was a wee little catholic school boy //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

ah now it all makes sense. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[fb4076 10+ year member]

Intelligent Design could be a science, didn't you ever see The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? HAHA, this is stupid, intelligent design needs to be taught, regardless of whether it is taught in science or not, it is a major belief, therefore leaving it out would be ignorant...

 

[Hundreth 10+ year member]

I have a favorite analogy. Following the acceptance of Newton's Laws of Motion and Theory of Gravitation, it was thought that the mechanics of the "clockwork universe" were finally, thoroughly comprehended. But along came a problem ... the orbit of the planet Mercury simply does not obey Newton's Laws (yes ... even with all gravitational forces completely comprehended). This presents an interesting choice :

1. Around the turn of the centruy (~1900), one could have simply concluded that Newton's Laws are wrong. Instead of moving according to the universal, predictable forces of gravity, the planets move according to the will of an omnipotent, invisible creator. The problem with such a theory, of course, is that it doesn't help predict where Mercury will be next October 12th.

2. Alternatively, one could further develop & refine Newton's laws ... perhaps achieve a deeper understanding of the universe, with a new theory that could : one, be tested to verify it's accuracy and two, help predict the motion of Mercury.

The human condition is well served by the fact that Einstein chose option number 2.

I thought that was pretty on point. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[adio 5,000+ posts]

And if the hypthesis was incorrect (the outcome did not occur), then we start over with a new hypthesis and test again until we arrive at a valid hypthesis, which then becomes a scientific theory. What does all of this do? Attempt to predict the outcome of future events. That is what science and the scientific method does.
Until someone can disprove a scientific theory, then that is the guaranteed outcome. And if the guaranteed outcome does not happen, then a new hypthesis is formed.

Science and the scientific method is dynamic like that....that is one of it's main strengths.

Yes, yes it is.

And even with all of those things, you will NEVER be able to form a scientific theory due to the qualification of an intelligent being being a part of ID. ID is not, can not and never will be a scientific theory or scientifically valid.

for the first paragraph, ur right. but again u need science and the scientific method to make a case for ID. evelotion theory isn't concrete it can change. ID theory isn't concrete, it can change. so how can a theory give a guaranteed outcome?? technically, that's impossible. the way we live, it's absolutely true.

ID can be scientifically valid. why? because of a thing called irreducible complexity.

look at this. i copied an pasted this from a website:

There’s a little motor in the back of some bacteria. It’s called a bacterial flagellum and it’s 1/100,000 of an inch long. It can spin at 10,000 rpms, stop at a quarter turn, and spin the other direction at 10,000 rpms. This is the most efficient motor in the universe, way beyond anything our technology can build. Well, all of the parts of this little motor must be present in the right spatial relationship in order for it to function. There is no scientist who would claim that all those parts happen to come together by mere chance and form this motor. The odds against that are too astronomical.

evevn though this paragraph has nothng to do with irreducible complexity, u need science and the scientific method to know that this exists. no religious book can tell you this exists and how it works.